I just wanted to post this because my evil twin started posting politics and im
going to speak the truth compared to what the other side of me would say. :cool:

We are at war here in America and as you vote on Tuesday , you should be
thinking about the candidate your voting for , is he strong enough to lead a
war on terror , I haven't seen any more attacks on American soil after 9/11
since Bush has been in office , I could care less about small stuff , I care
about the safety of America , the other stupid issues can wait.

Note: I am not here to offend any of you and your beliefs of which candidate
your willing to vote for , I just don't want a fucking Nuclear war where I am. :(

Little_Miss_1565

10-31-2004, 03:08 PM

I'm also asking myself, "Do I trust the leadership of the candidate who started the war in the first place?"

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. This has been proven by the Dept. of Homeland Security as well as the 9-11 Commission, and admitted (though quickly and quietly) by President Bush himself.

So why are we in Iraq? Because all of a sudden we decide there's something we should do there, after decades of pleading from Amnesty International about the atrocities being committed by Saddam (and the Taliban)? Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but many of the young soldiers who enlisted to go there think that Saddam was directly involved. Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were mortal enemies before we invaded--now, the two men's followers may be working together against a common enemy...us. Because of the Bush administration's purposeful confusion of the issues to acheive its own agenda, the safety of the American people is more compromised than ever before.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But no, Bush barely even investigates the Saudis because of the jaw-dropping financial ties the Bush family has to the very people that may have financed the biggest terrorist attack on American soil.

We've gotten ourselves into a huge mess, and I don't trust Bush's ability to follow through and stabilize Iraq.

TRUSTpunk

10-31-2004, 03:15 PM

But how do you know that Bush started the war , please explain.

The main thing that I believe Bush is focusing on is the Weapons Of Mass
Destruction which in the debate each candidate said that their where no
Weapons Of Mass destruction which in reality , their could be but Mr. Ass
AKA Bin Laden is hiding them from the Americans , what do you think John
Kerry would do to prove that their are no Weapons Of Mass Destruction
and how do you think he will end this war on terror.

I think about the issues before voting on a candidate , I want to make sure
im making the right choice , Saddam is a terrorists , this is a war on terror.

Looking at three years with no attack on our homeland is just awesome
and to know that Kerry left war haves me believing he's a bad candidate

Edit: Either way , I hope that who ever wins this election , I hope their good.

wheelchairman

10-31-2004, 03:36 PM

Your theory that Bush has prevented attacks on America's homeland is fraudulent. I, to steal a gem from the Simpsons, could say that this rock in my hand prevents terrorist attacks on our country as well. I picked it up after 9/11 and there hasn't been an attack since. Do you see any terrorists? Or furthermore I could say, there hadn't been a terrorist attack for 10 years, until Bush came to office.

Second. Your knowledge of the middle East embarrasses the death out of me. Osama Bin Laden would never hide Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destructions. Let me give you a little lesson. Saddam Hussein and Ba'athists are a secular group of politicians. They base their platform on Arab Nationalism and an Arab form of Socialism. They reject that any religion should play a part in the running of a nation.

Bin Laden on the other hand, I believe is a Wahhabist. Here's some history, the founder of the Islamic interpretation known as Wahhabism was a person who believed that, because Islam had been reformed and revised throughout the centuries, that these reformations were the cause to the decline of the Arab and Persian Islamic empires. Therefore, what needed to happen was a back to the roots of Islam migration. Really fundamentalist stuff this was back then. And Wahhabi lived back in the late 1700's I believe. Now the great thing is, this is also the period of time that the Royal House of Saud became the ruling house, and they were completely reliant on the support of the Wahhabi's. So what we have here is, today, the Wahhabi's supporting the Royal House of Saud and ensuring they stay in power. The Royal House of Saud rules in accordance to Wahhabi teachings. Which is why Saudi Arabia has to be one of the worst places to live on. But the thing is, Wahhabi's believe that Clerics have the right to run government. And Ba'athists believe the exact opposite.

So when Ba'athism really became popular, back in the late 60's. The fundamentalist Islamic Clerics were quivering in their robes. This was a rebellious movement that had completely denied the need for religion, this was the Arab people fightin' back and kickin' some ass. This was really not a pretty thing for the Clerics. The Clerics and the Ba'athists will never be united. I mean, immediately after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Saddam decided to get rid of that enemy. They were practically (and almost were) mutually exclusive. Now the Ayatollah system (Shi'ite) should not be confused with Wahhabism, these are two different sections of Islam. Which funnily enough, I believe also oppose each other.

So what we've basically had for the past 40 years is a fight between Islamic Clerics and Ba'athists. And yet we've all ignored that, because we're stupid Americans who can't fuckin' do a little research.

Oh and there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. People who still believe in them must be delusional. I mean, Powell and Rumsfield claimed to know exactly where they were. They've obviously been caught in the lie.

Now boy, please do some research before you make yourself sound stupid.

TRUSTpunk

10-31-2004, 03:55 PM

You don't see me trying to bash you , I asked nicely , why people think Bush
started the war , I want my answer before you see me unleash my Rage.

I don't believe anything John Kerry says , he's always changing his mind on
certain issues and you must be stupid thinking that a person who changes
his mind all the time on certain issues would be a good president. Ha!

By the way , you seem to know alot about history , answer my question.

nitropenguin!

10-31-2004, 03:55 PM

Ow these big paragraphs are hurting my brain.

wheelchairman

10-31-2004, 04:04 PM

why people think Bush
started the war ,
Impossible to tell. I would guess for oil/easier support for Israel/to flex the military muscle of the US in the eyes of the world/if it succeeded it would prove that Neo-Liberal economic policies actually work. But they don't.

TRUSTpunk

10-31-2004, 04:08 PM

Good point , either way , I hope that America doesn't get fucked.

No hard feelings man , I wasn't saying that everything I said was true when
I told you about Weapons Mass Destruction , thats just a guess. Later! :cool:

greencows12

10-31-2004, 04:21 PM

Kerry sucks, but bush is more of an asshole. Vote for who's kerry, he's less of a jerk off asshole motherfucker killer liar, because bush and hitler are the same shit different diaper. I'm am anarchist but I insist people get bush out of office, because we don't need an excuse for revenge on what happened when his dad was in office. Bush HAS a bush.

jimmyjimjimz

10-31-2004, 05:03 PM

I think I mentioned this before yesterday........................

Think of it this way
Bin Laden is still alive and still healthy
Bush said we'd get Bin Laden within 2 or 3 years on September 11th
Bush didn't do his job.

Little_Miss_1565

10-31-2004, 08:12 PM

Bush, when he started the war in Iraq, said that he was going in to get Saddam's massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction...but surprise of all surprises, there were none. The only weapons they found there were the ones that Reagan and Bush Sr. gave Iraq during their presidencies.

Bush also declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. Since then, almost 900 more soldiers have died.

And yet he refuses to admit he was wrong!

Kerry changes position on issues as he is proven to be wrong. I'd much rather have a president who will admit his mistakes and change his position as new evidence comes to light, than a president who will stupidly "stick to his guns" no matter what just so he can appear to be consistent.

greencows12

10-31-2004, 08:19 PM

Right on! Buck sucks ass! :D

Moose

10-31-2004, 09:20 PM

i told u before we are fucked either way. kerry is a coward. bush is stubborn...kerry will change positions depending on what is popular and well liked, it seems he doesnt think for himself anymore. seriously the guy cant stick to an opinion for a whole day. bush sticks to his guns, i think that is a good thing, but he also made what many believe is a mistake in iraq, if not for simply the war, how the war is going. so you can either elect kerry, who you have no idea what he is going to do, or vote for bush who will probably go and fight more wars with other nations that hold weapons and harbor terrorists. either way, both can fuck up once elected or re-elected. and im sure that will once again happen.

SicN Twisted

10-31-2004, 09:29 PM

I could never vote for Bush or Kerry, not because they're not qualified to lead the "War or Terror," but both of them support the idea of the "War on Terror." How could you vote for a candidate that wants to continue and endless war against anyone the state department deems as a enemy, with no specific motive or goal? The War on Terror to me is a justification for state tyranny based on keeping people afraid of false demons. I'd can't vote with conscience for either candidate, because they both support with without end.

Moose

10-31-2004, 09:34 PM

i agree with the war on terror, at least we are going after people that want to kill us and have, you act like they havent been successful, theyve killed us, and weve tracked some of them down so far. i understand the point of how it seems endless, but seriously we need to minimize how affective the terrorists that attack us can be. we never really kept on top of them, theyve tried to attack us before, multiple times, some in the u.s. some not, some successful, some not, and we kind of ignored it, i think its good that we are actually taking action because theyve shown if left alone they can kill us and i dont feel like being killed by a crazy fucker in a plane.

Little_Miss_1565

10-31-2004, 10:44 PM

i think its good that we are actually taking action because theyve shown if left alone they can kill us and i dont feel like being killed by a crazy fucker in a plane.

While I wholeheartedly agree with this, I feel I have to mention again that there is no link whatsoever that our government can find between September 11th and Iraq/Saddam/etc. Though we should probably have taken action against Saudi Arabia since most of the hijackers were Saudi, we didn't. I do not feel that the Bush administration has taken the proper action to protect the country.

Sic--I don't like the War on Terror, either. But at this point, I really feel like we're so far in, and all other structures have been so destroyed that we can't pull out until new structures are in place--otherwise, we are sure to have even more senseless death on our hands. It's a fucked-if-we-do-fucked-if-we-don't situation now, which sucks completely.

wheelchairman

11-01-2004, 06:56 AM

The War on Terrorism is impossible. It fails under the age-old idea of 'you can kill the people, but you can't kill the idea.'

Terrorism doesn't happen because people live happy content lives in the Middle East thanks to Western intervention. Quite the opposite, in fact, in the countries where the west intervenes most there appears to be more terrorists (such as Iraq) what a shocking dialectic that is. Terrorism appears because of certain material conditions. The strongest being that of religion. For religion only thrives and gains potency when the material conditions of a population are at a certain quality level.

Now religion in the Middle East is very strong because moderates are completely irrelevant. Not to say that there aren't a lot of them, the majority of muslims I believe would fall under the moderate category. But the large amount of fundamentalists exists because of the abnormal amounts of oppression done in the Middle East by the US and Israel. These people are fuckin' desperate. Even the well-to-do are seeing their brothers and sisters starving to death. Now how can one see that and not be affected? So of course they listen to these fundamentalists pointing out the obvious perpetrator of these crimes. Of course they feel the need to fight back. What other choice do they have? Peaceful methods have failed because the other side won't compromise.

Secondly, on the nature of Al-Qaida, you people act like this is some kind of army. That is completely incorrect. Al-Qaida is a much more loosely connected organization. Member cells wouldn't even have contact with each other except at large intervals and such things like that. Most people who say they are members, are usually just people who support the ideology of Al-Qaida, because Al-Qaida has gone underground for the most part.

Anyways to conclude, the only thing that the war on terror will do, is kill a lot of people, but the people it will kill are going to come in unlimited supply. This ain't gonna end cause it ain't killin' the idea behind it. In fact the stupidity of this strategy is largely to blame for why we are losing the war on terror. And creating more terrorists than we are capturing is something I'd call as a loss.

offspringueuse

11-01-2004, 06:59 AM

because there are stupids people in america! :rolleyes:

Little_Miss_1565

11-01-2004, 07:12 AM

Agreed, WCM.

because there are stupids people in america! :rolleyes:

Looks like there are stupid people in France, too. Oversimplification is hardly a mark of intelligence, you know.

Faded Soul

11-01-2004, 08:20 AM

I think a majority of this election is based on putting fear into the Americans. If we vote for Bush, he'll save us from those evil terrorists. If we vote for Kerry, World War III will commence. You see, Mr. Bush is good about putting fear into the American's eyes. The whole "Homeland Security Terrorist Alert" thing, is about putting fear into us. If you didn't notice, it was raised to the highest level from Sep. 11th, 2001 to sometime after the first of 2002. Then raised again in March of 2003 when bombs dropped on Bagdad. Then it went back to the usual yellow; elevated, as we're used to seeing. We will never see it at the lowest.

I was for going after Bin-Ladin, but after the big speculation of Hussein being tied, to 9/11 I started having doubts. But, I do agree, Hussein was a nasty man to his people. But the question that pops into my mind, why lie about the connection to 9/11? There has to be more than just Hussein being a nasty man. As you well know, Iraq sits on one of the worlds largest oil fields. W. is an oil tycoon. hmmm It's about money & power and good ol' W. just doesn't want you to know that! Instead, he claims he is protecting us and the Iraquis...funny, how Condi, Colin Powell, and Rummy said in early 2001, that "Saddam Hussein is not an iminent(sp?) threat to the United States of America". But we cannot afford to pull out now, seeing how we must finish a mess that we started. I have a funny feeling this war will carry on for more than a decade.

TRUSTpunk

11-01-2004, 10:32 AM

This is the most hardest election we have ever gone through because we are
in a damn war at the same time over in the middle east and that makes it
hard for the voters because their thinking in their mind , hmmm , who do
I vote for , is it Kerry or Bush , Kerry changes his mind alot , Fuck!

Also , I agree , Bush probably did start this shit over oil but we don't know
if its the full truth unless God himself told us that , this election sucks. :(

Little_Miss_1565

11-01-2004, 01:49 PM

hmmm , who do
I vote for , is it Kerry or Bush , Kerry changes his mind alot , Fuck!

I don't understand why everyone's making such a big deal about Kerry changing his mind. Wouldn't you rather have a leader that will consider an opposing viewpoint and reevaluate his stance based on that new evidence, than a president that will only stubbornly stick to the initial findings no matter what?

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Mr. President! <Country> has just launched nuclear weapons at us!
PRESIDENT: FIRE BACK!
PA: Oh wait, my bad, it was a computer glitch. No nukes, no missiles...
PRES: Didn't you hear me? I said fire a return volley! I do not flip-flop!

anon

11-01-2004, 02:35 PM

Hoi all!

First of all, re all in this finally working forum :>

I thought this is a good place to post my new first post in this new forum :> [well, not so new, but its new compared to the old non-working one :]

So. The title of my msg shows what I'm going to write: Does it matter?

I mean, you all Americans go and nearly kill each other only because you're argueing that which president will be the better? Well, the answer imo is simple:

It doesnt matter which one will win, it will be bad. The general politics of USA wont change, the american troops wont leave Iraq, the average American citizen in the streets of new york wont eat more, the average european wont like USA more...

The economics wont change, the behaviour of american leadership wont change, and the fact that the american leaders think that they're the kings of the world and guardians of peace, that wont change either...

It will ALL be the same... the very same, no matter the new president will be John Kerry or George Bush.

One difference - If Bush loses, then it wont be so hip to hate the president any more. Coz now, it came into fashion to hate the president of the USA, even tho Bush is just a little more stupid than the other presidents. [Tho since Clinton was a little more smart than the other presidents, Bush's stupidity is just more clear]

Thats all, bye all
ZS

Little_Miss_1565

11-01-2004, 04:29 PM

Actually, one of Kerry's main sticking points is repairing relations with our European allies.

Revolver-2005?

11-01-2004, 05:08 PM

u know wht bush should just go away and live in Iraq since he loves tht plce so much...he lets america die lolo wht a dick

vote kerry

SicN Twisted

11-01-2004, 07:17 PM

Bush's foreign policy is parallel to the way he carried himself in the first debate - at least, by his constant mispronunciation of the world "nuclear," which showed the intellectual prowess of a 6 year old. It's an undesputable fact that there's no additional vowel between the second and third consenent of the world nuclear. Nobody in their right mind could possibly debate this. But too bad for George Bush, he started saying "nuculear" from square one, and he's not gonna be a flip-flopping liberal and correct his grammar. Nope, he's gonna be a cowboy and stick to his guns, despite the fact that he's been proven wrong.

The whole "flip flopper" thing only makes Kerry look good to me. It shows he's capable of admitting mistakes, unlike the president at the moment.

Faded Soul

11-01-2004, 10:20 PM

Also , I agree , Bush probably did start this shit over oil but we don't know
if its the full truth unless God himself told us that , this election sucks. :(

it has been proven. and you wanna know who has the biggest contract on the big pipeline? Unocal/76. almost all of Bush's advisors are all of his oil cronies. enough said.

anon

11-02-2004, 01:04 AM

Ahoi

Actually, one of Kerry's main sticking points is repairing relations with our European allies.

HEH. "Allies", you say. Despite the fact that my own country is considered as an "ally" of usa, many people do hate the usa. And as i see it in europe, there's the same situation in many countries. Allies? While USA's behaviour is such a pain in the ass, this feeling wont change.

no additional vowel between the second and third consenent of the world nuclear

It was kinda bad to commit the same mistake (writing "world" instead of "word") twice when you want to emphasise the grammatical mistakse of Bush :P ;)
[Just kiddin, dont take me seriously :]

Byez all
ZS

Little_Miss_1565

11-02-2004, 04:47 AM

HEH. "Allies", you say. Despite the fact that my own country is considered as an "ally" of usa, many people do hate the usa. And as i see it in europe, there's the same situation in many countries. Allies? While USA's behaviour is such a pain in the ass, this feeling wont change.

It was kinda bad to commit the same mistake (writing "world" instead of "word") twice when you want to emphasise the grammatical mistakse of Bush :P ;)
[Just kiddin, dont take me seriously :]

What's the point of saying anything at all if you're just going to say "don't take me seriously"?

And um, I think you misunderstood me. A lot. I said that Kerry wants to repair relations with our European allies, which means that Kerry wants to take steps to fix the damage done to our relations, which means that Kerry does not want European citizens to hate America, which means he won't be doing obnoxious things to trample all over them. We're on the same side here.

WeGotThePower(Fuck Bush)

11-02-2004, 04:52 AM

What i think is Bush has no idea what he's really doing, my theroy is that his daddy is telling him what to do. I could be wrong but whatever, thats all i think.

anon

11-02-2004, 04:55 AM

What's the point of saying anything at all if you're just going to say "don't take me seriously"?

Heh. :| That wasnt for you, that was for sickntwisted :]
Check my post :>

Kerry does not want European citizens to hate America, which means he won't be doing obnoxious things to trample all over them.

hm. We'll see. If Kerry wins.

The only way Europeans would stop hating [better word: disliking] USA is if the leaders of USA wouldnt always say "we're the best. we're the greatest. we're the guardians of freedom. we're the guardians of peace. Let us guard your peace. Let us guard your freedom. If you dont want to let us guard you, then you're a terrorist." ... Even tho they dont say this explicitly, the meaning of what they do is this.

Another bad thing is that USA is only guardians of countries where they can find benefits. USA dont give a shit of african countries where there are wars since decades. Why? because there's no money, only starvation.

Byez
ZS

anon

11-02-2004, 05:05 AM

What i think is Bush has no idea what he's really doing, my theroy is that his daddy is telling him what to do.

Absolutely not impossible. Well, in america its not really important who the president is, the advisors are more important. Bush Senior can be Bush Junior's best advisor :>

Hm. btw, this really makes an interesting question, not only about american politics, but about politics in general: who do you think are the decisionmakers? I mean, we have politicians and presidents and ministers, but... Let's say we have a politician who has to choose between solution A and solution B? what/who does he consider?

Whose opinion is the most important in making decisions?
Press/TV/Wife/Family/Political Party/Political elite in general/Political advisors/other members of government/own view/friends/neighbourhood/Opinion of the national crowd/Opinion of international crowd?

Zs

ihatechrissneed

11-02-2004, 05:23 AM

I'm also asking myself, "Do I trust the leadership of the candidate who started the war in the first place?"

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. This has been proven by the Dept. of Homeland Security as well as the 9-11 Commission, and admitted (though quickly and quietly) by President Bush himself.

So why are we in Iraq? Because all of a sudden we decide there's something we should do there, after decades of pleading from Amnesty International about the atrocities being committed by Saddam (and the Taliban)? Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, but many of the young soldiers who enlisted to go there think that Saddam was directly involved. Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were mortal enemies before we invaded--now, the two men's followers may be working together against a common enemy...us. Because of the Bush administration's purposeful confusion of the issues to acheive its own agenda, the safety of the American people is more compromised than ever before.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But no, Bush barely even investigates the Saudis because of the jaw-dropping financial ties the Bush family has to the very people that may have financed the biggest terrorist attack on American soil.

We've gotten ourselves into a huge mess, and I don't trust Bush's ability to follow through and stabilize Iraq.
lol, this sounds like it was quoted out of fahrenheit 9 11
:p

Fallen.

11-02-2004, 07:34 AM

3RD PARTY CANDIDATES

for the love of God, can you actually only vote for two people?

if not, vote for someone else!!

Little_Miss_1565

11-02-2004, 09:58 AM

The only way Europeans would stop hating [better word: disliking] USA is if the leaders of USA wouldnt always say "we're the best. we're the greatest. we're the guardians of freedom. we're the guardians of peace. Let us guard your peace. Let us guard your freedom. If you dont want to let us guard you, then you're a terrorist." ... Even tho they dont say this explicitly, the meaning of what they do is this.

Another bad thing is that USA is only guardians of countries where they can find benefits. USA dont give a shit of african countries where there are wars since decades. Why? because there's no money, only starvation.

TRUST ME, we hate that our leaders say those things, too. That's why so many of us work hard all the time fighting to get those people out of representative positions in our government, because that does not represent the way we feel. It's really discouraging to me and to everyone I work with to achieve this that no matter how hard we fight, we are generalized in with the people saying these terrible things just because we're American. I don't know what we can do so that Europeans recognize that they're on the same side as many Americans and that we're really not all fighting against eachother.

lol, this sounds like it was quoted out of fahrenheit 9 11
:p

LOLZERZ, is it that obvious I just watched it last week?

But to be fair, Al Franken's book had many of the same points.

anon

11-02-2004, 10:21 AM

TRUST ME, we hate that our leaders say those things, too.

Hm. I tried to be careful not to say "people of america", iirc i always wrote "leaders of america" ... I had a teacher from usa, i know ppl from usa on the net, so i have idea that leaders of usa dont do the same that represents the view of the people.

I don't know what we can do so that Europeans recognize that they're on the same side as many Americans and that we're really not all fighting against eachother.

Well, thats a hard thing. You know, till american leaders are occupied with "making peace and freedom", and european leaders are occupied with licking the asses of american leaders, what can we, the normal citizens do?

Well, not more than babbling in silly forums about how stupid leaders we have.... :)

Zs

Vera

11-02-2004, 11:36 AM

Bullshit, European leaders in general are not licking American leaders' asses, unless your definition of "licking ass" means "recognizes the United States as the powerful state it is". In fact, I think most of the leaders and representatives of EU and European countries have critisized Bush's government and its actions in Iraq and so on.

I think to Europeans it would be important that United States recognizes EU as a significant union.

And yes, American arrogance is annoying. European superiority is annoying as well. We're all on the same line.

And if all else fails, we can all mock the French.

RXP

11-02-2004, 12:46 PM

And if all else fails, we can all mock the French.

Quoted for emphasis.

Vera

11-02-2004, 12:59 PM

It's a uniting power.

Unnatural Disaster

11-02-2004, 07:24 PM

I don't believe anything John Kerry says , he's always changing his mind on
certain issues and you must be stupid thinking that a person who changes
his mind all the time on certain issues would be a good president. Ha!

Just to let you know, almost every president changes his mind like that. Except people made a big deal about John Kerry